We performed a comparison between AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Backup solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We have never had any issues with scalability."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward, it's not complex."
"It's on the cheaper side and not too expensive for users."
"For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine."
"Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests."
"CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution."
"The most valuable aspect of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is its instant block replication feature. This allows us to perform live block verification and eliminates the need to concern ourselves with recovery point objectives. This capability is particularly advantageous for critical workloads."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"We are definitely in the process of reducing our footprint on our secondary data center and all those snapshots technically reduce tape backup. That's from the protection perspective, but as far as files, it's much easier to use and manage and it's faster, too."
"It offers ease of use and a comprehensive suite of applications, including features like SnapMirror, SnapVault, and unified snapshot management, all bundled into a single product."
"ONTAP is great for helping you migrate on-premise workflows to cloud environments."
"Another feature which gets a lot of attention in our environment is the File Services Solutions in the cloud, because it's a completely, fully-managed service. We don't have to take care of any updates, upgrades, or configurations."
"It makes sure we have control of the data and that we know what it's being used for. The main thing for us is that we need to know what applications are consuming it and responsible for it. The solution helps us do that."
"Replication to the cloud is the most valuable feature. Deduplication and compression are also very important to us. We are in the process of adopting to the cloud. We are going to AWS and we are trying to do a safety technician call out with integration to the cloud. NetApp allows us to move some of the volume to the cloud, at the same time that we continue providing the cloud services that we have on premises."
"This solution has helped us because it is easy to use."
"Snapshots are one valuable feature within ONTAP, but CVO's appeal is that it acts just like the on-prem solution. It's the same OS, but in the cloud. We can continue to use ONTAP as we did on-premise."
"The UI could be a little sleeker."
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"I set up a test, deleted the source, and went to fail it back, and it didn't work."
"The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved."
"I would like to see better support for creating and working with archives."
"Sometimes a server will get a bit behind. "
"The bandwidth is a constant upload communication to the AWS DR environment, so if you do not have the proper bandwidth, it will definitely eat up your internet line."
"The user interface, customer support, and the recovery time for the current customer query could use improvement."
"I would like to see more information about Cloud Volumes ONTAP using Google Cloud Platform on NetApp's website."
"We would like to have support for high availability in multi-regions."
"The data tiering needs improvement. E.g., moving hard data to faster disks."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"Multipathing for iSCSI LUNs is difficult to deal with from the client-side and I'd love to see a single entry point that can be moved around within the cluster to simplify the client configuration."
"In the next release, I would like to see more options on the dashboard."
"Something we would like to see is the ability to better manage the setup and tie it to our configuration management database. We manage our whole IT infrastructure out of that database."
"When Azure does their maintenance, they do maintenance on one node at a time. With the two nodes of the CVO, it can automatically fail over from one node to the node that is staying up. And when the first node comes back online, it will fail back to the first node. We have had issues with everything failing back 100 percent correctly."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 23rd in Cloud Backup with 11 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 10th in Cloud Backup with 60 reviews. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is rated 7.4, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery writes "Free, easy to use, and offers good support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is most compared with Azure Site Recovery, AWS Backup, Oracle Data Guard, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery and Zerto, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Portworx Enterprise. See our AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
See our list of best Cloud Backup vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Backup reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
